I am not going after people that have went after me. In fact, I was building a case on you before you had said anything about me. I then switched to Wicked when Reckoner pointed out his contradiction and dropped my case on you.
As for the following post (480): I was speculation on two possibilities. I wasn't intentionally trying to imply you have a power role. Its just part of my playstyle. I tend to go with a gut feeling or just thinking out loud until the player(s) I'm speaking about respond to it and I can use that information to judge the situation more accurately.
Reckoner: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 88#1738988
I'm not parroting you. You brought up a valid point and I agree with that line of thinking. When I brought my case against DRK, it was based on something I viewed as a contradiction. When you pointed out another player guilty of a stronger contradiction, I went along with it.
ChannelDelibird: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 88#1739488
At that point, I had no opinion. Just because cases were made doesn't mean I need to jump in and make weigh in on it. By that logic, we'd get more people accusing me of parroting. Its lose-lose for me.CoCo's 360 claims "no opinion" on wolfram, Wicked, qax, and myself. Which is ridiculous. There have been cases on most of that group and to have absolutely no opinion on any of them just doesn't seem possible to me.
Yes, it does give the scum "a chance to fuck the town over." Which is why I said we shouldn't be discussing it. I used the textbook definition of vigilante because I really don't want to discuss the role. Yet, I've been asked to do so twice now. The vig can do what he wants, all we can do is hope he makes the correct choice.CoCo's reasoning for saying that we shouldn't be talking about who Reckoner may or may not kill is weird. His conclusion, yeah, that's absolutely right, we shouldn't be, but his reasoning isn't "it gives the scum a greater chance of being able to fuck the town over at night", it's because "a vigilante is someone who takes the law into his own hands". I don't know whether this is particularly scummy, just because it's so stupid, I don't see any reason why scum are more likely to say it. But weird, nonetheless.
In the same post, CoCo upgrades his FoS on Wicked to a vote. Why the wait?
I was waiting to see if Wicked would respond before an additional vote for the stated reason was added.
No. Just no. I had conflicting issues about Qax and wasn't sure how to go about explaining it. Judging by my shitty track record for explaining myself or my reasons, that shouldn't be too hard to understand.Possible scumbuddies? Meh, I don't want to get into connections before we know anyone's alignment, but this does suggest CoCo/qax scum. It also suggests just CoCo scum, for trying (badly) to stir the pot.
See above. Why are you so concerned with the vig's role? Twice now in a single post you've brought it up.Here's a strange post - if he thinks the role can be used wisely to help the town, why does he not care what it does? And, of course, "I'm VERY pro town" does not read very pro town at all.
As for saying I'm very pro-town, it probably wasn't a smart move. However, on its all I can do to ensure my survival considering my playstyle is often viewed as scummy.
About the remainder of your post; the Qax thing is finished. I was reading some posts, came to a conclusion, and now he's being replaced. I do not feel the need to discuss it further. I will see what happens with his replacement.
On the subject of Lobster, I asked him to elaborate and he did. What more was there to say? I'd have done the same regardless of who he was voting for.
Finally, concerning replacements; Usually (barring certain cases), if I have a vote on a player being replaced, I unvote and ask the replacement to explain their predecessor's reasoning in their own words. Then make a judgment on that.
